Reward and punishment effects on error processing and conflict control

Abstract

Recently, positive affect has been reported to reduce cognitive conflicts and adaptations related to conflict control. van Steenbergen et al. (2009) proposed that the aversive quality of conflicts drives short-term adaptations following a conflict. They reasoned that monetary gain and its positive emotional consequences might counteract the aversive quality of conflict and hence reduce subsequent adaptations. In two experiments, we combined Simon-type conflicts with monetary gains and losses in between trials and analyzed event-related brain potentials. In Experiment 1, gains and losses occurred randomly between trials as a lottery, whereas in Experiment 2 gains and losses were contingent upon performance, either rewarding the 25% fastest responses or penalizing the 25% slowest responses. In Experiment 1, conflict adaptation was completely unaffected by gains or losses; contrary to predictions, in Experiment 2, conflict adaptation in reward blocks was more pronounced after a gain. In Experiment 2 we also investigated the error-related negativity (ERN) – a brain signal proposed to be related to performance monitoring. The ERN and behavioral post-error slowing were enlarged in the context of reward; therefore, reward increases error adaptation, possibly by enhancing the subjective value of errors. In conclusion, affective modulations of conflict adaptations seem to be much more limited than previously asserted and adaptive mechanisms triggered by errors and conflicts dissociate.

Mood states influence cognitive control: the case of conflict adaptation

“…Second, the affective stimulus might act as a reward or punishment signal related to the previous trial (e.g., Braem, Verguts, Roggeman, & Notebaert, 2012;Stürmer, Nigbur, Schacht, & Sommer, 2011). Because it is difficult to distinguish whether the modulation of conflict adaptation in these studies was driven by the affective or motivational aspect of the inserted stimuli, we prefer to use the method of sustained mood induction to investigate emotional influence on conflict adaptation.…”

The emotive nature of conflict monitoring in the medial prefrontal cortex

“…Indeed, increased top-down control is implemented if performance is incentivised or punished (Chiew & Braver, 2013;Riesel et al, 2012;Saunders et al, 2015a;Stürmer et al, 2011), when threatening images signal the need to inhibit a pre-potent response (Senderecka, 2016), after negative mood inductions (Kuhbandner & Zehetleitner, 2011; Affective neuroscience accounts of control also predict that awareness of internally generated emotional states should moderate control. Alexithymia reflects individual differences in the ability to detect and describe self-generated emotion (Taylor, Bagby, & Parker, 1999).…”

Effects of Reward and Punishment on Conflict Processing: Same or Different?

“…Furthermore, though reward and punishment have been found to share the same brain region, namely the cingulate cortex which is critically involved in processing the expectation and occurrence of reward and punishment (Stürmer, Nigbur, Schacht, & Sommer, 2011), they have rarely been studied simultaneously, which may be probably due to their opposite affective value. For example, Krebs, Boehler, and Woldorff (2010) mainly investigated how reward associations influenced the processing of conflicting information with monetary incentives, and they found that color-naming performance in a Stroop task was enhanced on trials with potential-reward versus those without.…”